From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10508 invoked by alias); 28 May 2002 00:09:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10501 invoked from network); 28 May 2002 00:09:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.alinoe.com) (24.132.80.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 May 2002 00:09:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 7046 invoked by uid 500); 28 May 2002 00:09:00 -0000 Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 17:09:00 -0000 From: Carlo Wood To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Is this information correct? Message-ID: <20020528020900.B12154@alinoe.com> References: <20020527142006.A23953@alinoe.com> <20020527180721.GC5523@branoic.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020527180721.GC5523@branoic.them.org>; from drow@mvista.com on Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:07:21PM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:07:21PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > What's this part about though? I think it's really referring to gdb > 5.1 instead. 5.2 should be fine. That was because of this chat I had on IRC: [03:04] <`Kernel`> Run: not really. I had been awaiting 3.1 to remake world, but unfortunately preliminary tests showed that it outputs crap debug info. [03:05] I can't believe that. [03:05] Actually, it works fine for me. [03:05] <`Kernel`> well, on the project I tested with, gdb 5.2 can't find some of the source files. [03:06] I have no problems, also using gdb 5.2 [03:06] <`Kernel`> it works perfectly if you switch CXX=g++-3.0.4 instead of g++-3.1 [03:06] Oh wait [03:06] <`Kernel`> (and it also says that main() is in some .h) [03:06] I had to fix libcwd too because they switched from DW_FORM_string to DW_FORM_strp (pointers into a string table) for source files and directory names. [03:07] That could be the reason. [03:07] <`Kernel`> it could be the reason gdb fails? [03:07] I am using the lastest cvs version of gdb, and that works. [03:07] yes, because it was changed since 3.1, and it WOULD fuck up the source files [03:08] <`Kernel`> hmm... ok, I'll try that. Altough gdb 5.2 if I am not mistaken was out May 14, one day before gcc 3.1. I'll ask `Kernel` if moving to the cvs version of gdb does help him. -- Carlo Wood